We have a free press in the US. Because some people do not like the message they want to kill the messenger. If one does not like Fox, change channels, If Someone does not like the Post they can read the Times . A person should accept the fact that they are wrong sometimes an have biased opinions

I agree. However there are those that are of the opinion that "religion" is special. There are those who have the opinion that the messenger should ignore the likes of Pastor Terry. Because it could endanger the lives of Americans. And they are right.

So far as I know no one has been murdered by Muslims because of this latest burning of english translations of the Quran by Pastor Terry...yet.

We've seen that. And what did they say of it? "There's no news in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia."

Thr free world needs none of that.

We've also seen a BBC that has a global reputation for objectivity and impartiality and zealously guards that reputation. The Beeb is funded by the TV license, effectively a tax on owning a television but has rarely descended into being a mouthpiece of the state.

I'm not saying the Beeb is perfect, far from it, but I am saying that the pros and cons of state-owned media are rather more complex than the above quote suggests.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

We the people have more institutions than just "government", our societies are organised in a multi-layered, non-centralised way, such that government is very much controlled and checked, and its influence on other public institutions remains very limited. Here in Europe at least. Is that very different in the USA?

We have a free press in the US. Because some people do not like the message they want to kill the messenger. If one does not like Fox, change channels, If Someone does not like the Post they can read the Times . A person should accept the fact that they are wrong sometimes an have biased opinions.

What you cannot reliably get in this system is information that cannot be economically exploited, i.e., 'mere news'. Why would "a person need to accept" that, and go for less than the best solution?

We've seen that. And what did they say of it? "There's no news in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia."

Thr free world needs none of that.

We've also seen a BBC that has a global reputation for objectivity and impartiality and zealously guards that reputation. The Beeb is funded by the TV license, effectively a tax on owning a television but has rarely descended into being a mouthpiece of the state.

I'm not saying the Beeb is perfect, far from it, but I am saying that the pros and cons of state-owned media are rather more complex than the above quote suggests.

We've also seen a PBS and NPR that has a global reputation for objectivity and impartiality and zealously guard their reputations. PBS and NPR are funded by the state and public and private money. They rarely "sell soap".

"The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners. This political objectivity is sometimes questioned. For instance, The Daily Telegraph (3 August 2005) carried a letter from the KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky, referring to it as "The Red Service". Books have been written on the subject, including anti-BBC works like Truth Betrayed by W J West and The Truth Twisters by Richard Deacon."

"The BBC is regularly accused by the government of the day of bias in favour of the opposition and, by the opposition, of bias in favour of the government. Similarly, during times of war, the BBC is often accused by the UK government, or by strong supporters of British military campaigns, of being overly sympathetic to the view of the enemy. An edition of Newsnight at the start of the Falklands War in 1982 was described as "almost treasonable" by John Page, MP, who objected to Peter Snow saying "if we believe the British"."

"It has been accused of political bias from across the political spectrum. Internationally, the BBC has been banned from reporting from within some countries which accuse the corporation of working to destabilise their governments"

I'm not saying the PBS and NPR are perfect, far from it, but I am saying that the pros and cons of state-owned media are rather more complex than the above quote suggests.

I am also not saying that the news media that depends on "selling soap" is perfect. The pro and cons of coporate owned media are rather more complex than the need to "sell soap".

Both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal need to "sell soap" to survive.

Neither one of them are considered to be completely objective.

Tell did you hear of the latest "news(?)" of PastorTerry burning a copy of a translation of the Quran on the BBC?

Was it a "headline"?

It certainly was a NOT a "headline" on any of the "soap selling" T.V. news programs I have watched.

Nor was it a "headline" in the soap selling NY Times or World Street Journal.

The bottomline so far as I am concerned is that in the United States burning a Quran is free speech. Calling the Profit a child molesting pedophile is free speech. Putting an image of the Muhammad or ayats from the Quran is free speech. Now I certainly would understand that Muslims would not approve of it and it would hurt their feelings. But it does no damage to the religion, to Muhammad or to the Quran. It could even be considered a "sin".

However as far as I am concerned it should NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE A CRIME, OR TO BE USED AS A JUSTIFICATION TO THREATEN OR TO EMPLOY VIOLENCE EITHER ON THE ONES ACTING DOING THE "INSULTING" ACTIONS AND ESPECIALLY ON THOSE WHO HAVE NO MORE TO DO WITH IT THAN BEING AN AMERICAN OR A CHRISTIAN.

Yeah, this is the first I'm hearing of it as well. I still say if he wants to make a statement to Muslims, he should be shipped off to the appropriate country where he can do so in person, but I think some people would consider that rather "mean".

Knock and the door shall open. It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.

Yeah, this is the first I'm hearing of it as well. I still say if he wants to make a statement to Muslims, he should be shipped off to the appropriate country where he can do so in person, but I think some people would consider that rather "mean".

Its not mean, its justice. This man is trying to get his 15 minutes and doesn't care who gets hurt in because it.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson

If this stunt results in more rioting and US troops are killed in the unrest, then "pastor" Jones should be brought up on homicide charges and perhaps be extradited to Afghanistan.

>>>>>>>> Pastor of this TINY church has an issue with Muslims (Followers of Islam). If he was so "Touched" by the situation in Iran, he could have burnt an Iranian Flag in protest.

But he has been trying and burning Qur'an for a while. This is nothing more than "Shock TV".

My personal opinion says, it is "Hate speech" not free speech. He is desperate to get some attention. So much so that, he is cares little that, his little stunt can harm lives of US solders who are defending his punk ass by working many corners of the world.

This is a self-absorbed, greedy, attention hungry desperate man. Far from any average pastors I have met.